Sir - A Papadakis (Flight International, Letters, 1-7 March, P35) asks why the US Federal Aviation Administration was not as stringent with the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 as he believes it was with the ATR turboprop. The answer is twofold.
Firstly, the record of the DC-10 never called for "stringent" actions by the FAA. In the 1970s and 1980s as now the DC-10 performed, with distinction for its many operators. There is nothing unsafe about the aircraft. In fact, the DC-10 is still adding to its millions of safe and comfortable revenue flight hours and to its more than 10 billion miles flown, while maintaining its place as a favoured jet airliner among carriers and passengers.
Secondly, the FAA surely cannot be accused of taking less-than-stringent actions in respect of the DC-10. Mr. Papadakis overlooks the fact that, in 1979, following an accident later shown to be unrelated to the aircraft's design or performance, the DC-10 was grounded for a short period. Exonerated by the facts, the aircraft was returned to service.
I submit that the DC-10 has spent more time under the industry's microscope than any other aeroplane, with the result that it met, and still meets, the standard for aviation's first rule - that of safe operation.
ROBERT HOOD
President
Douglas Aircraft
Long Beach, California, USA
Source: Flight International
